Chicago Noise Posted August 4, 2014 Report Share Posted August 4, 2014 *foresee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted August 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) So I guess this discussion is over? There's still lots of discussion going on in the thread; people jumping in to answer questions poised at the GM's. We also seem to have a problem where we don't finish discussions. Would anyone object to me requesting a vote on my proposal? (Obviously that would include poll options for modifications like suggested by Chicago.) Edited August 16, 2014 by Uberstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Noise Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 I would second your notion of a vote, I'd like that to happen. It is very difficult for me to scroll through all the discussion in the GM Hall to see what is going on with our community rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 As long as you follow the proper procedures for requesting the vote, a vote can be had. But I still don't think we need a rule for this. Next time people won't stop being shitheads and want to argue, we'll pause their RP for 48 hours and let them sit while we talk things out on our own time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted August 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 So we're going to just have GM's arbitrarily doing things instead of community voted upon rules? I guess now we see the violence inherent in the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 So we're going to just have GM's arbitrarily doing things instead of community voted upon rules? I guess now we see the violence inherent in the system. When did anyone ever support anybody doing anything arbitrarily? The GMs are elected and wield powers given to us by the community from which we are a part. We don't have the power to lock threads. If someone wants to sit there and post 50 pictures of a donkey's cock, they can do so and we can't do shit about it other than report the forum violation. Our powers are related to the RP, and the problem of their impatience and arguing is solved by making it not in their interest to badger the GMs or argue if they want a quick resolution to their problem. If people know that their RP will be paused, they won't sit there and argue. It's a perfect solution that can easily be reversed and causes no long-term harm, in addition to making the job of the GMs easier and more efficient as we can actually sit and discuss things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 I would have just shut the hell up and waited with the Mael situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Right now it's impossible to find rulings, and everyone and their mother is posting long arguments, or useless "witty" remarks, or alarmist statements. It's absurd. I propose that two rules be implemented, based off of how rules are implemented. 1. GM's Hall is a no discussion thread, where only the involved parties post their case and, if requested by a GM, clarification of their case. Then a clear ruling should be posted, and that is the end of it. Requests for spy rolls also go in the hall. 2. Should a disagreement with the ruling happen, the disagreeing party starts a discussion thread on a specific ruling. After a minimum of two weeks, which would give time for even the least active players to see the thread, a poll would be held on the ruling. Only a 75% community majority would null the ruling. Of course we could just scream "no we don't need more rules" and continue the circus that is the current GM's Hall. I agree with Chicago and Lynneth. I really like your first point but not really the second one. I mean we already vote in the GMs and have constant elections. We don't need to have a referendum on every single ruling. This isn't California :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted August 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 It isn't a required referendum, it's meant to be an immediate but optional check on GM power. However, it's possible the elections and three GM system already does that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.